Alito to USSC

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
How many employees do yo have?

If your company has less than 50 employees you are not required to follow the FMLA.

I have only 2 employees. But my objections to the FMLA have nothing to do wiht the size of the business - 50 employees was an arbitrary number. The fact remains that it is a federal mandate that just makes no business sense at all.[/quote]

FMLA worked for you when you worked for someone else.

FMLA does not apply to the business you operate but now that you are a small business owner you are against the FMLA.

Let me know when your company reaches 50 employees as I will congradulate you and help you figure out how to solve any issues that arrise from complying with the FMLA.

Good luck.

42

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
FMLA worked for you when you worked for someone else.

FMLA does not apply to the business you operate but now that you are a small business owner you are against the FMLA.

Let me know when your company reaches 50 employees as I will congradulate you and help you figure out how to solve any issues that arrise from complying with the FMLA.

Good luck.[/quote]

My employers allowed me to leave work before there was such a thing as FMLA.

Your condescension does little to further your point.

The FMLA is punitive to business. Period.

43

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Bush’s comments were unprofessional and embarrassing.

I expect more out of WH speech writers.

I am not being sarcastic.

I thought it might be fun to see if there was actually any substance to one of these ABB rants.

Here is the introduction in it’s entirety:

"THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I’m pleased to announce my nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Alito is one of the most accomplished and respected judges in America, and his long career in public service has given him an extraordinary breadth of experience.

As a Justice Department official, federal prosecutor and judge on the United States Court of Appeals, Sam Alito has shown a mastery of the law, a deep commitment of justice, and a – and he is a man of enormous character. He’s scholarly, fair-minded and principled, and these qualities will serve our nation well on the highest court of the land.

Judge Alito showed great promise from the beginning in studies at Princeton and Yale Law School; as editor of the Yale Law Journal; as a clerk for a federal court of appeals judge. He served in the Army Reserves and was honorably discharged as a captain. Early in his career, Sam Alito worked as a federal prosecutor and handled criminal and civil matters for the United States. As assistant to the solicitor general, he argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court, and has argued dozens of others before the federal courts of appeals.

He served in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel providing constitutional advice for the President and the executive branch. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan named him the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, the top prosecutor in one of the nation’s largest federal districts, and he was confirmed by unanimous consent by the Senate. He moved aggressively against white-collar and environmental crimes, and drug trafficking, and organized crime, and violation of civil rights.

In his role, Sam Alito showed a passionate commitment to the rule of law, and he gained a reputation for being both tough and fair. In 1990, President Bush nominated Sam Alito, at the age of 39, for the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. Judge Alito’s nomination received bipartisan support and he was again confirmed by unanimous consent by the United States Senate. Judge Alito has served with distinction on that court for 15 years and now has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years.

Judge Alito’s reputation has only grown over the span of his service. He has participated in thousands of appeals and authored hundreds of opinions. This record reveals a thoughtful judge who considers the legal matter – merits carefully and applies the law in a principled fashion. He has a deep understanding of the proper role of judges in our society. He understands that judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people.

In the performance of his duties, Judge Alito has gained the respect of his colleagues and attorneys for his brilliance and decency. He’s won admirers across the political spectrum. I’m confident that the United States Senate will be impressed by Judge Alito’s distinguished record, his measured judicial temperament, and his tremendous personal integrity. And I urge the Senate to act promptly on this important nomination so that an up or down vote is held before the end of this year.

Today, Judge Alito is joined by his wife, Martha, who was a law librarian when he first met her. Sam and I both know you can’t go wrong marrying a librarian. Sam and Martha’s two children, Phil and Laura, are also with us, and I know how proud you are of your dad today. I’m sure, as well, that Judge Alito is thinking of his mom, Rose, who will be 91 in December. And I know he’s thinking about his late father. Samuel Alito, Sr., came to this country as an immigrant child from Italy in 1914, and his fine family has realized the great promise of our country.

Judge, thanks for agreeing to serve, and congratulations on your nomination."

My GOD!!!

What an awful speech (when you realize it was W. giving it).

Can I get my blue state card now?

JeffR[/quote]

LOL…if your a ABB’er and you know it clap your hands.

Miers was a colossal F up. Clenis made most of his misteps after he jestisoned Dick Morris and Bush has appeared to struggle while Rove has been distracted. That should not be an issue from this point forward.

I agree the WH’s pick of Alito and I was not born or raised in NJ. I moved here 7+ years ago to take a job in the tri-state area.

Alito is from NJ but you have a problem with NJ?

Have some more Kool-Aid Freeptard.

44

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
FMLA worked for you when you worked for someone else.

FMLA does not apply to the business you operate but now that you are a small business owner you are against the FMLA.

Let me know when your company reaches 50 employees as I will congradulate you and help you figure out how to solve any issues that arrise from complying with the FMLA.

Good luck.

My employers allowed me to leave work before there was such a thing as FMLA.

Your condescension does little to further your point.

The FMLA is punitive to business. Period.

[/quote]

LOL

You support something when you need it but if you don’t then you are against it.

Good deal.

45

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
LOL

You support something when you need it but if you don’t then you are against it.

Good deal.[/quote]

You miss the whole point. There was no FMLA when I asked for 3 days off to get married. There was no FMLA when I asked for 2 days off for the birth of my son. I worked for a company of 7 employees when I asked for 4 days off for the birth of my daughter.

If my employers would not have given me the time off - I would have either quit, or not taken off. But make no mistake - I have NEVER been for an employee telling an employer when he will work and when he won’t.

I never felt I had the right to just take off. That is what the FMLA does - gives the employee more power than he should have.

I don’t really expect you to understand what I am saying. You seem to be enjoying your run of little smart-assed quips. maybe when your medicine wears off, you’ll figure out what I am saying.

46

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
FMLA worked for you when you worked for someone else.

FMLA does not apply to the business you operate but now that you are a small business owner you are against the FMLA.

Let me know when your company reaches 50 employees as I will congradulate you and help you figure out how to solve any issues that arrise from complying with the FMLA.

Good luck.

My employers allowed me to leave work before there was such a thing as FMLA.

Your condescension does little to further your point.

The FMLA is punitive to business. Period.

LOL

You support something when you need it but if you don’t then you are against it.

Good deal.[/quote]

Do you actually read the posts you respond to or just jump to conclusions that prove your own point?

47

[quote]JeffR wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
I believe this was all part of the plan all along. Get everyone all fired up about someone who has no real judicial record (Miers) and then have her drop out at the right time and bring in the ringer (Alito). That way it galvanizes the GOP and catches the DNC off guard again.

[NOTE]- This is just pure speculation on my part and has no real basis in fact. It is also just fun to throw that out there.

That is an interesting theory. I heard someone else propose something quite similar.

al, are you coming around? This is tantamount to admitting that W. is “dumb like a fox.”

(It can’t be Rove (he’s too busy/ testifying).

It can’t be Cheney (he’s the Minister of Propaganda/too busy)

Could it BE W.?

JeffR[/quote]

JeffR,

I never once said that Bush was dumb. Unsophisticated, uncouth, uncaring and tactless, but never dumb. In fact, I have gone on record here and said that he was pretty smart in that he takes advantage of his surroundings and resources (i.e. using daddy’s cred to keep out of Vietnam, to get into one of the top ivy league schools in the nation, to help him become Governer of Texas and eventually the POTUS etc.).

However, I am not coming around to endorsing Bush in any way, shape or form. I am capable of acknowledging a possible brilliant strategy regardless of who implements it.

48

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
LOL

You support something when you need it but if you don’t then you are against it.

Good deal.

You miss the whole point. There was no FMLA when I asked for 3 days off to get married. There was no FMLA when I asked for 2 days off for the birth of my son. I worked for a company of 7 employees when I asked for 4 days off for the birth of my daughter.

If my employers would not have given me the time off - I would have either quit, or not taken off. But make no mistake - I have NEVER been for an employee telling an employer when he will work and when he won’t.

I never felt I had the right to just take off. That is what the FMLA does - gives the employee more power than he should have.

I don’t really expect you to understand what I am saying. You seem to be enjoying your run of little smart-assed quips. maybe when your medicine wears off, you’ll figure out what I am saying.[/quote]

I understand what you are saying.

Your experience is not typical. In your case FMLA can cause your company or the company you use to work for a hardship.

Neither companies would have to comply based on the information you posted.

Cheers!

49

[quote]Kuz wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
FMLA worked for you when you worked for someone else.

FMLA does not apply to the business you operate but now that you are a small business owner you are against the FMLA.

Let me know when your company reaches 50 employees as I will congradulate you and help you figure out how to solve any issues that arrise from complying with the FMLA.

Good luck.

My employers allowed me to leave work before there was such a thing as FMLA.

Your condescension does little to further your point.

The FMLA is punitive to business. Period.

LOL

You support something when you need it but if you don’t then you are against it.

Good deal.

Do you actually read the posts you respond to or just jump to conclusions that prove your own point?[/quote]

Just having fun at others expense.

50

Nice human interest piece on Alito from the Daily Princetonian – college classmates give some description of Alito the undergrad at Princeton:

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/10/28/news/13656.shtml

51

Really interesting article in the Legal Intelligencer in which a former 3rd Circuit judge (Alito currently sits on the 3rd Circuit) – and self-professed liberal speaks quite highly of Alito:

http://www.law.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View&c=LawArticle&cid=1130765715807&t=LawArticle

Money quotes:

[i]Lawyers who know Alito complained Monday that his nickname – “Scalito” – has unfairly branded Alito as a carbon copy of Justice Antonin Scalia and a “knee-jerk conservative” whose vote is predictable.

“To call him ‘Scalito’ is to completely misunderstand him,” said attorney Timothy K. Lewis of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, a former 3rd Circuit judge who was Alito’s colleague for seven years.

Lewis, who describes himself as liberal, said Alito is solidly conservative and that the two sometimes disagreed, but that it was “always a deeply respectful disagreement.”

“First and foremost,” Lewis said, “Sam Alito is intellectually honest. This is what makes him a wonderful judge and also why I feel very good about his appointment to the Supreme Court.” [/i]

and

As a justice on the Supreme Court, Goldberger conceded that he “doesn’t relish” how Alito is likely to vote in important criminal cases, but that “he’s not a right wing nut.”

52

Alito was unanimously confirmed to the 3rd Circuit by a Democratic Senate. I doubt it will go as smoothly this time around.

I heard McCain talking this morning. His gang of 14 are going to hold meetings to determine what constitutes ‘extraordinary circumstances’ for the Alito confirmation.

You have Dirty Harry whining and moaning, and various other lefties crying about Alito. Kinda makes you wonder what has transpired in the last 13 or so years that gives the lefties such pause.

I’m hoping it comes to a filibuster/nuclear option showdown. If there is a filibuster - the republicans that are part of the gang of 14 have just signed their political death warrants. If the nuclear option is employed, the left will be completely powerless in future partisan battles.

I am growing tired of allowing the minority party to wield such power. And the fact that there are 14 Senators that hold the fate of a filibuster in their hands is ridiculous.

53

I think that when discussing the law, such as the FMLA, it’s important to know something about it. I’m not 100% sure, and I’m too damn lazy to look it up at the moment, but I THINK that an employer can deny a request for FMLA leave if the employee’s situation does not fit one of the situations in the statute. It’s not like an employee can say, “Hey boss, I’m taking time off. See you in 12 weeks.” And the leave is unpaid. Perhaps some of you who do employment law for a living can clear this up.

Is the FMLA a good law? Hell if I know. On the one hand, I’ve worked for my share of assholes, so a little power in my corner never hurt. On the other hand, I’m pretty sure that over the last two years I haven’t used all of my alloted time off. And my company has a use it or lose it policy so if I don’t use my time off during the year I lose it. And my company is always hurting for staff during the holidays, but the work still needs to get done. If I’m in town, I usually chip in and do some work even if I’m scheduled to a vacation day.

54

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Alito was unanimously confirmed to the 3rd Circuit by a Democratic Senate. I doubt it will go as smoothly this time around.

I heard McCain talking this morning. His gang of 14 are going to hold meetings to determine what constitutes ‘extraordinary circumstances’ for the Alito confirmation.

You have Dirty Harry whining and moaning, and various other lefties crying about Alito. Kinda makes you wonder what has transpired in the last 13 or so years that gives the lefties such pause.

I’m hoping it comes to a filibuster/nuclear option showdown. If there is a filibuster - the republicans that are part of the gang of 14 have just signed their political death warrants. If the nuclear option is employed, the left will be completely powerless in future partisan battles.

I am growing tired of allowing the minority party to wield such power. And the fact that there are 14 Senators that hold the fate of a filibuster in their hands is ridiculous.[/quote]

The minority keeps the majority in check.

That is why we are a democratic republic.

If the shoe was on the other foot and Republicans were in the minority and they filibustered a left wingnut nominee I would be 100% for it.

Frist’s so call ‘Nuclear Option’ is a very bad idea.

Do you honestly think that Republicans will always be in power?

That is the same the thing Democrats thought when they were running the show.

Newt Gingrich said it best, “You see the same people on the way up as you do on the way down”.

55

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The minority keeps the majority in check.[/quote]

But the minority has no right to make a simple majority vote turn into a super majority. That’s what filibustering a confirmation does. It has nothing to do with keeping the majority in check.

That’s why the majority rules - not a 60% majority.

I think Ginsburg and Brier (sp on both) were both confirmed with Republican minorities - and no filibuster.

Based on the recent past history of the overly partisan left - it has come down to either using the nucleat option or putting up with a filibuster happy minority.

Always is a long time - but the right will be in power for several more years. And based on the state of chaos the left is in, unless they can figure out how to remove their heads from their ass - the right is in no danger.

It was a good 60 year run - I’ll give them that. But they have lost in both the arena of ideas and at the ballot box. The Republican’s time is coming - but not for a while.

I wonder if the democrats are thinking about that on their way down.

56

Rainjack said:
“I think Ginsburg and Brier (sp on both) were both confirmed with Republican minorities - and no filibuster.”

  • The reason that they were so easily confirmed is because they were suggested by Orrin Hatch (R). This a snippet from his autobiography:
    I told him [Clinton] that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.

Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer’s name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.

I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.

rom his autobiography:

RJ said “Based on the recent past history of the overly partisan left - it has come down to either using the nucleat option or putting up with a filibuster happy minority.”

Bush has had over 90% of his judicial nominations confirmed by the senate…Clinton’s were not even allowed out of committee much of the time.

57

[quote]dermo wrote:

I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.
[/quote]

Exactly right - and there is little reason to think that Alito doesn’t fit the same description, except for the liberal part.

When appointed federal judge, he was qualified. His track record over his 15 years on the bench is rather transparent - his opinions are available to anyone who wants to read them.

But now, Democrats are wailing that he is ‘outside the mainstream’ - but what opinion did he write in his 15 years that has shocked the conscience of the nation? You see, the Democrats aren’t interested in his process - they want to measure him on what they think his results will be.

Ginsburg - a feminist liberal who acted as counsel for the ACLU - replaced Byron White. White wrote the dissent in Roe v. Wade. So the GOP voted for her despite the fact that her vote on the constitutionality of abortion was the opposite of the man she was replacing. Why? Because she had the qualifications and was an esteemed jurist. Her process - not her results - were what got her a seat on the USSC.

Elections have consequences - conservative presidents are going to pick conservative justices. As long as they are the class of their field - as it appears Alito is - then there should be no storm clouds.

That being said, the Democrats can fuss about the pick all they want - they aren’t supposed to love the guy. But, make fair and good criticism of the guy - not this “he’s not the candidate to unite the country” garbage - that’s not what judges do.

58

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Elections have consequences - conservative presidents are going to pick conservative justices. As long as they are the class of their field - as it appears Alito is - then there should be no storm clouds.

That being said, the Democrats can fuss about the pick all they want - they aren’t supposed to love the guy. But, make fair and good criticism of the guy - not this “he’s not the candidate to unite the country” garbage - that’s not what judges do.[/quote]

I think that’s a great point. I was reading something over on AndrewSullivan.com where he made a similar point… if Democrats don’t like the nominees the President is putting up, then [i]win[/i] an election. Too much of their resistance at this point is not based on there being some kind of flaw with Judge Alito (which should be the real reason for blocking the nomination or having a filibuster), but only for pure political gain.

The bad thing for the Democrats is that this is not a controversial candidate, liberals who have worked with and for him find him to be an excellent, measured jurist and filibustering is really just going to cause a horrific backlash.

59

The Republicans showed no deference to Bush’s pick of Miers so the Democrats will argue that they do not need to show any deference to Alito.

The Miers nomination was not a ploy but a case of extremely bad judgement.

The moment Dirty Harry (Reed) suggested her alarm bells should have gone off.

60

[quote]dermo wrote:
RJ said “Based on the recent past history of the overly partisan left - it has come down to either using the nucleat option or putting up with a filibuster happy minority.”

Bush has had over 90% of his judicial nominations confirmed by the senate…Clinton’s were not even allowed out of committee much of the time.
[/quote]

It would be nice if the left were as willing to work with Bush as Hatch eveidently was to work with Clinton.

That is the right of a Majority party - to hold up and delay, especially in committee. The Dems are more then proficient in that regard.

You can gripe all you want - but the use of a filibuster to require a Supermajority when a simple majority is all that is needed for confirmation is wrong and should be stopped - regardless of which party employees the tactic.